2017 (12) TMI 726 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value of imported goods - smuggling - case of Revenue is that the appellant failed to rebut without leading and cogent evidence to prove their innocence - Held that - Learned adjudicating authority found that the misdeclaration caused serious prejudice to interest of Revenue and these appellants were consciously and deliberately involved therein to cause subterfuge to Revenue making illegal gain at the cost of Revenue. The bank accounts investigated reveal the money trail involved in the smuggling activities carried out by appellants. They could not detach themselves from the racket of smugglers. Whole evidence on record reveal that all these appellants were members of smuggling racket. Criminal prosecution was also launched by department against conspiracy made by these appellants - The documents recovered revealed commitment of offence against Revenue and movement of the goods also speak against the appellants as to their involvement in routing these smuggled goods to their destination. When material facts came to record and that remained unrebutted by the appellants, it can be said that learned adjudicating authority having passed a very detailed order bringing out the evidence and fact in para 73 of his order, that does not call for any intervention - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ignoring appearance of counsel due to lack of instructions.
2. Multiple adjournments sought by appellants causing prejudice to Revenue.
3. Allegations of smuggling high-value goods misdeclared as low-value items.
4. Involvement of various individuals in the smuggling racket.
5. Failure to rebut allegations, leading to dismissal of appeals.

Issue 1: Ignoring appearance of counsel due to lack of instructions
The court decided to ignore the appearance of counsel Shri M.H. Patil due to the difficulty faced in receiving instructions from the client, despite multiple attempts. This decision was made considering the circumstances and the lack of communication from the client.

Issue 2: Multiple adjournments sought by appellants causing prejudice to Revenue
The court noted that the appellants had sought several adjournments, leading to delays in the proceedings. This behavior was viewed as dilatory tactics, resulting in the appeals being heard on merit based on the record and assistance of Revenue. The failure to cause appearance was seen as prejudicing the Revenue due to a significant penalty demand raised in adjudication.

Issue 3: Allegations of smuggling high-value goods misdeclared as low-value items
The Revenue presented evidence indicating a scheme where high-value goods were imported by misdeclaring them as low-value items. Various individuals, including Ashwani Aggarwal, were implicated in this fraudulent activity. The evidence included statements, investigations, and material facts revealing a criminal conspiracy to defraud the government of legitimate revenue through smuggling practices.

Issue 4: Involvement of various individuals in the smuggling racket
The investigations revealed the active participation of individuals like Sanjay Arora, Mukesh Saxena, Ravinder Pal Kapoor, and Jatin Kapoor in the smuggling racket. Their roles in misdeclaring goods, handling imports, and avoiding cooperation with the investigation were highlighted. The court emphasized that the evidence pointed towards a premeditated design by the appellants to defraud the Revenue through smuggling activities.

Issue 5: Failure to rebut allegations, leading to dismissal of appeals
Despite the serious allegations and evidence presented by the Revenue, the appellants failed to rebut the accusations or provide substantial evidence to prove their innocence. The court found that the appellants were consciously and deliberately involved in the smuggling activities, causing prejudice to the Revenue. The adjudicating authority's detailed order highlighted the conduct of the appellants and the evidence against them, leading to the dismissal of all appeals.

This judgment addressed the issues of counsel appearance, repeated adjournments, smuggling of high-value goods, involvement of individuals in a smuggling racket, and the failure to rebut allegations. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence presented, and the conduct of the appellants in engaging in fraudulent activities to evade duties and taxes. The dismissal of the appeals was based on the failure of the appellants to provide a valid defense against the accusations of smuggling and defrauding the government of legitimate revenue.